1

Trust, mistrust and citizen vigilance in radioactive waste management policies: a historical analysis of four forerunner countries

Markku Lehtonen (UniversitatPompeu Fabra & EHESS & University of

Sussex),Matthew Cotton (Univ of York, UK)

Arne Kaijser (Kungliga TekniskaHögsklolan, Stockholm)

Modern2020 Final Conference, Paris, 9-11 April 2019

2

HoNESt project

• History of interaction between nuclear sectorand society

• Historians & social scientists• 20 countries studied• History of public engagement since WWII• September 2015 – February 2019• 23 partner institutions• Coordinator: Universitat Pompeu Fabra

(Albert Presas i Puig)• Funded by Euratom• www.honest2020.eu

History of Nuclear Energyand Society

3

Trust and RWM policy

• Trust-building as a “silver bullet” supposed to solve the problems of local citizen acceptance & acceptability

• Partnerships• Social Licence to Operate• OECD-NEA: Forum on Stakeholder

Confidence

RWM policy and the “participatory turn”

4

1. Historical legacies2. Interaction between various

dimensions of trust in shaping RWM policy

3. Potential downsides of trust and the corresponding virtues of mistrust, especially in the form of ‘civic vigilance’

Key questions

5

Illustrative case studies

High-trust societies

Low-trust societies

FinlandSweden

France

UK

Forerunners in repositoryplanning and implementation

Contrasting case, forerunner in participatory approaches

6

OECD 2013. Governance at glance. (percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?”)

Delhey et al. 2011. Answers to question: “Generally speaking, would you say that mostpeople can be trusted or that you need to be verycareful in dealing with people?

Trust: national surveys

7

Trust, mistrust, and trust-building

8

Finland Sweden France UKMunicipal veto Yes Yes No Uncertain

Participation, dialogue

EIA, public hearings

Multistakeholderdialogue projects

CNDP CoRWM; WCMRWP

Economic support

Tax benefits; modest “private” support agreement

No tax benefits; significant value-addedprogramme

Tax benefits; mandatory economic support; industry support

Promise of community benefit packages

Independentbodies of control and oversight

No National Council on Nuclear Waste; support for counter-expertise

National Review Board; CLIS; HCTISN; counter-expertise organisations

CoRWM

Trust-building measures

9

• Long-established institutional mistrust, including mistrust towards citizens (FRA & UK)

• Feelings of repeated betrayal & broken promises (FRA: Bure selection, socioeconomic benefits…)

• Accidents and suspicions of cover-up (FRA Chernobyl; UK technical difficulties & scares)

• Tradition of opacity & civilian-military link (esp. FRA)

• UK: mediocre track record of domestic nuclear industry

• Long-standing institutional and ideological trust in public and private-sector actors and institutions

• No accidents (FIN), no broken promises• Referendum on phasing out nuclear (SWE 1980)

Trust and historical legacies

Negative (FRA & UK)

Positive (FIN & SWE)

10

Interacting dimensions of trust/mistrust

SocialGeneralised

& Particularised

InstitutionalDiffuse

&Specific/particula

rised

IdeologicalBroader beliefs of

appropriaterelations between

state, market, democracy,

authoritarianism..

11

Particularised social trust amongst RWM policy actors:• foundation of a trust-based and collaborative style of

regulation in Finland and Sweden• foundation of internal cohesion within the nuclear

“establishment”

• “us vs. them” perceptions and mistrust of the state among the local population (FRA)

• mistrust of “nucleocracy”

Reciprocal social mistrust between the waste management experts and local citizens (UK in the 1990s)

Social and institutional trust/mistrust

Success in building

institutional trust

=contingent on

long-established social trust and

mistrust relationships

12

Ideological and institutional trust/mistrust

Nordic trust-based democracy and consensual regulatory style:• ideological trust in national and local-level

representative democracy• public interest collaboratively defined & defended by

state bureaucracy and local authoritiesvs.

UK liberal mistrust-based democracy and regulatory style• ideological trust in the market AND ‘community’• entrenched institutional mistrust of the ‘Big Six’ and

government’s RWM policyvs.

France: expert-centred regulatory style • trust-based collaboration amongst an ‘inner circle’ of

experts• adversarial relations between the state and the civil

society

Success in building institutional trust

=contingent on

long-established ideological trust

and mistrust

13

Virtues of mistrust: “civic vigilance”

The Nordic paradox?• trust in the state (bureaucracy and politics) => mistrust

of deliberative democracy

Sweden• active and vigilant NGOs and municipalities• National Council on Nuclear Waste• dialogue, technical counter-expertise• dynamic interaction between trust and mistrust• compatibility with the traditional trust-based regulatory

style?

Finland• Absence of constructive mistrust? Overtrust?• deference to authorities, the rule of law, and the

engineers in charge of the project• mistrust of environmental NGOs • passive municipalities

Role of counter-expertise, NGOs = feeding mistrust, as civic vigilance

Absence of a Nordic model

Downsides of trust

14

Four configurations of trust & mistrust

Finlandpragmatic trust

Franceresigned trust & radical mistrust

Swedengenuine trust via constructive mistrust

UKambiguous mistrust

• repository project appears as an inevitability• legally correct and therefore legitimate process • (extreme) trust in safety authority (& state bureaucracy)

• deep-seated reciprocal relations of institutional mistrust• “us vs. them” (the local vs. “the state”)• ideological trust in the state• repository project as the ‘only hope’ for the region

• dialogue and counter-expertise as the basis of trust• strong national-level social and institutional trust• ideological trust in representative politics

• growing institutional mistrust of the ‘Big Six’• long-standing ideological trust in “market fundamentalism”

or “pro-market energy policy paradigm” and “community”• ‘technocratic’ trust in government scientists and anti-nuclear

discourses of mistrust in government scientists

15

The End

16

Trust in the safety of disposal

4/11/2019 Source: Kari et al., 2010, 69.

17

Acceptance to live near a site

18

Project-focused trust

Worried about waste management?

19

Credibility and competence of nuclear-sectorstakeholders

Institutional trust in France